I have always been interested in seeing different responses to the Kalam Argument so I am going to post my case and I just want to see different responses. I will state the argument (even though I am sure everyone here has seen it) and then explain.

Whatever begins to exist has a causeThe universe began to existTherefore the universe has a cause

The two premises are not religious statements. They can be found in an astrophysics and cosmology books. David Hilberg possibly the greatest mathematician of the 20th century said, "the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. it neither exist in nature nor provides a legitement basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." Also, Stephen Hawking (physicist) said, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." Almost all philosophers of science recognize that an infinite universe is impossible and that there is no evidence for any sort of multiverse. If the universe began to exist the universe must have a cause. So what is that cause? It would either have to be an abstract object, such as numbers, or a personal mind. The personal mind would have to outside of space and time, immaterial, personal, moral and powerful. It could not be an abstract object because they cannot cause anything. Anthony Kenny, an agnostic philosopher from oxford university, said, "(A proponent of the big bang) theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that matter came from nothing and by nothing."

I am not looking to get in big debates in these forums I am just interested in reading responses. Thanks to everyone who reads and gives posts

At 3/31/2012 10:04:32 AM, stubs wrote:I have always been interested in seeing different responses to the Kalam Argument so I am going to post my case and I just want to see different responses. I will state the argument (even though I am sure everyone here has seen it) and then explain.

Whatever begins to exist has a causeThe universe began to existTherefore the universe has a cause

The two premises are not religious statements. They can be found in an astrophysics and cosmology books. David Hilberg possibly the greatest mathematician of the 20th century said, "the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. it neither exist in nature nor provides a legitement basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." Also, Stephen Hawking (physicist) said, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." Almost all philosophers of science recognize that an infinite universe is impossible and that there is no evidence for any sort of multiverse. If the universe began to exist the universe must have a cause. So what is that cause? It would either have to be an abstract object, such as numbers, or a personal mind. The personal mind would have to outside of space and time, immaterial, personal, moral and powerful. It could not be an abstract object because they cannot cause anything. Anthony Kenny, an agnostic philosopher from oxford university, said, "(A proponent of the big bang) theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that matter came from nothing and by nothing."

I am not looking to get in big debates in these forums I am just interested in reading responses. Thanks to everyone who reads and gives posts

It's a solid argument. I think the main objections to it are A) Quantum Mechanics proves things can come into existence uncaused and B) P1 equivocates in regards to creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) and creatio ex materia (creation from pre-existing materials. There are a few others, but I'd say those are the only relatively compelling objections. But even then, WLC makes short work of these objections.

I think the best argument in favor of the KCA is the problem of infinite regress. Basically if the universe and time always existed, then why do events happen when they do? There's been an infinite amount of time for all things to happen so why did they happen at all? It's basically a Hilbert's Hotel paradox. From what I've seen atheist/agnostics will sidestep this by either asserting A) this problem applies to all possible first causes of the universe (somehow) and is therefore invalid or B) we just haven't found a natural cause of the universe that satisfies this paradox yet.

"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"

At 3/31/2012 10:04:32 AM, stubs wrote:I have always been interested in seeing different responses to the Kalam Argument so I am going to post my case and I just want to see different responses. I will state the argument (even though I am sure everyone here has seen it) and then explain.

Whatever begins to exist has a causeThe universe began to existTherefore the universe has a cause

The two premises are not religious statements. They can be found in an astrophysics and cosmology books. David Hilberg possibly the greatest mathematician of the 20th century said, "the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. it neither exist in nature nor provides a legitement basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." Also, Stephen Hawking (physicist) said, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." Almost all philosophers of science recognize that an infinite universe is impossible and that there is no evidence for any sort of multiverse. If the universe began to exist the universe must have a cause. So what is that cause? It would either have to be an abstract object, such as numbers, or a personal mind. The personal mind would have to outside of space and time, immaterial, personal, moral and powerful. It could not be an abstract object because they cannot cause anything. Anthony Kenny, an agnostic philosopher from oxford university, said, "(A proponent of the big bang) theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that matter came from nothing and by nothing."

I am not looking to get in big debates in these forums I am just interested in reading responses. Thanks to everyone who reads and gives posts

It's a solid argument. I think the main objections to it are A) Quantum Mechanics proves things can come into existence uncaused and B) P1 equivocates in regards to creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) and creatio ex materia (creation from pre-existing materials. There are a few others, but I'd say those are the only relatively compelling objections. But even then, WLC makes short work of these objections.

I think the best argument in favor of the KCA is the problem of infinite regress. Basically if the universe and time always existed, then why do events happen when they do? There's been an infinite amount of time for all things to happen so why did they happen at all? It's basically a Hilbert's Hotel paradox. From what I've seen atheist/agnostics will sidestep this by either asserting A) this problem applies to all possible first causes of the universe (somehow) and is therefore invalid or B) we just haven't found a natural cause of the universe that satisfies this paradox yet.

To be honest, WLC's objections were quite horrible.

First Video: There is still clearly an equivocation because I could just ask, did X come form something that existed before time T, or did X come from nothing that existed before time T?

Since the Kalam Cosmological Argument still equivocates "begin to exist" to mean both "begin to exist from something" and "begin to exist from nothing" using the glossing over technique, then the objection still stands. It's stands no matter how firmly Craig tries to define it because it's just semantics on his behalf, and not getting to the root of the problem with the argument.

Second Video: Craig is confusing dependency and causes. A ripple in a pond depends on the pond to exist, but the pond itself isn't the direct cause of the ripple. I'm not arguing that that virtual particles are uncaused from nothing like Craig says atheists are, but the consensus is, at the Quantum level that the virtual particle fluctuations occur spontaneously (which means acting with no external stimulus). Acting without external stimulus would include an external cause.

First Video: There is still clearly an equivocation because I could just ask, did X come form something that existed before time T, or did X come from nothing that existed before time T?

Since the Kalam Cosmological Argument still equivocates "begin to exist" to mean both "begin to exist from something" and "begin to exist from nothing" using the glossing over technique, then the objection still stands. It's stands no matter how firmly Craig tries to define it because it's just semantics on his behalf, and not getting to the root of the problem with the argument.

Second Video: Craig is confusing dependency and causes. A ripple in a pond depends on the pond to exist, but the pond itself isn't the direct cause of the ripple. I'm not arguing that that virtual particles are uncaused from nothing like Craig says atheists are, but the consensus is, at the Quantum level that the virtual particle fluctuations occur spontaneously (which means acting with no external stimulus). Acting without external stimulus would include an external cause.

Ah, Rational, how are you doing today?

P1 doesn't equivocate because it's not setting out to prove the universe came about creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia, or creatio ex deo. Of course you can add the extra bit "begins to exist from something" and "begins to exist from nothing" but by then you're attacking a straw man version of the argument.

There are many interpretations of QM. Not all of them are undeterministic (as WLC points out). The general consensus is irrelevant as A) It is an Ad Populum/Argument from Authority and B) Unknown cause =/= non-existent cause.

"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"

First Video: There is still clearly an equivocation because I could just ask, did X come form something that existed before time T, or did X come from nothing that existed before time T?

Since the Kalam Cosmological Argument still equivocates "begin to exist" to mean both "begin to exist from something" and "begin to exist from nothing" using the glossing over technique, then the objection still stands. It's stands no matter how firmly Craig tries to define it because it's just semantics on his behalf, and not getting to the root of the problem with the argument.

Second Video: Craig is confusing dependency and causes. A ripple in a pond depends on the pond to exist, but the pond itself isn't the direct cause of the ripple. I'm not arguing that that virtual particles are uncaused from nothing like Craig says atheists are, but the consensus is, at the Quantum level that the virtual particle fluctuations occur spontaneously (which means acting with no external stimulus). Acting without external stimulus would include an external cause.

Ah, Rational, how are you doing today?

P1 doesn't equivocate because it's not setting out to prove the universe came about creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia, or creatio ex deo. Of course you can add the extra bit "begins to exist from something" and "begins to exist from nothing" but by then you're attacking a straw man version of the argument.

There are many interpretations of QM. Not all of them are undeterministic (as WLC points out). The general consensus is irrelevant as A) It is an Ad Populum/Argument from Authority and B) Unknown cause =/= non-existent cause.

Actually, you believe that there was God, then there was the universe. Therefore, the Kalam has to be arguing for creation from nothing.

"The general consensus is irrelevant as A) It is an Ad Populum/Argument from Authority and B) Unknown cause =/= non-existent cause."

A) So if scientific consensus is irrelevant, then I guess the consensus that The Big Bang is true doesn't mean anything according to your logic.

b) This is an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know how it could have no cause, doesn't mean it doesn't. All evidence points to virtual particle fluctuations being spontaneous. This means, acting without external stimulus.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

William Lane Craig has written hundreds of pages upon more multitudes of hundreds of pages on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Leave it for an obscure forum user on an obscure debating site to "destroy" Craig's Kalam Argument.

William Lane Craig has written hundreds of pages upon more multitudes of hundreds of pages on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Leave it for an obscure forum user on an obscure debating site to "destroy" Craig's Kalam Argument.

The Fool: Honestly, you have just made the top 5 list of the worse arguments I have heard yet on DDO. lol.

P1 Craigt has writting alot about the argument.MP2 alot of writing takes alot of refuting(missing premise)C1 therefore it can't be refuted by an obscure forum user.

You definitly made my day. lol ;)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The Fool: it doesn't matter the Majority of the principles I use to refute overlap onto the Kalam argument, just the same.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

William Lane Craig has written hundreds of pages upon more multitudes of hundreds of pages on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Leave it for an obscure forum user on an obscure debating site to "destroy" Craig's Kalam Argument.

People have written volumes upon volumes of meaningless drivel that could all be evanesced by the smallest motion of science......You can't argue in support of something by touting how much is written about it.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

Really? Not only do you message me multiple times and spam the debate, but you are spamming the religion/philosophy forums with your endless rage as well?

Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.

Really? Not only do you message me multiple times and spam the debate, but you are spamming the religion/philosophy forums with your endless rage as well?

The Fool: lol what am I doing? lol yep that is exactly what I am doing. lol spamming with rage. .lol. hahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahha

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The Fool: it doesn't matter the Majority of the principles I use to refute overlap onto the Kalam argument, just the same.

No....

The Fool: you genious you. ;)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Really? Not only do you message me multiple times and spam the debate, but you are spamming the religion/philosophy forums with your endless rage as well?

The Fool: lol what am I doing? lol yep that is exactly what I am doing. lol spamming with rage. .lol. hahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahha

lol thats right spamming all over philosophy and religion sections. lol The insanity! ;)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

1) Atheists equivocate when they claim things come from nothing in quantum mechanics. To them, nothing doesn't mean nothing. It means a sea of transient particles, which is not nothing. Nothing means nothing, or non-being. Non-being cannot produce being.

2) Atheists equivocate when they try to claim that everything comes into existence from pre-existing materials. They equivocate when they say nothing begins to exist. The reality is that people begin to exist. When the sperm meets the egg, the sperm and the egg cease to exist and in their place is a new, unique, living human being. We begin to exist. Therefore we can see that things do begin to exist, so it is perfectly reasonable to argue that since the universe began to exist, as we do, then it had a cause of its existence, as we did.

1) Atheists equivocate when they claim things come from nothing in quantum mechanics. To them, nothing doesn't mean nothing. It means a sea of transient particles, which is not nothing. Nothing means nothing, or non-being. Non-being cannot produce being.

The Fool: I would be considered an athiest in most people terms. I think quantum mechanics have some majore problems. you claim is not even possible. I am sure many buddest don't think that. Come on now. you could do better then that. lol.

2) Atheists equivocate when they try to claim that everything comes into existence from pre-existing materials.

The Fool: I think atheist is way to broad a category to makes such claim. What are you going to say next. We are all Chinese!!! lol.

They equivocate when they say nothing begins to exist.

The Fool: hmmm lol

The reality is that people begin to exist.

The Fool: well I am glad somebody knows the reality. lol hahahahahhaa . What are you baseing this on again? hahahha ahahahaha

When the sperm meets the egg, the sperm and the egg cease to exist and in their place is a new, unique, living human being. We begin to exist.

The Fool: yes sir, right away sir, then sperm meets the egg sir!!!

Therefore we can see that things do begin to exist, so it is perfectly reasonable to argue that since the universe began to exist, as we do, then it had a cause of its existence, as we did.

The Fool: Is there a sperm and egg in the bible? Oh sorry I think I am still using last months bible. You know, technology is moving so fast these days its hard to keep up. I feel like I am getting old. Do I look fat in these Jeans?

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Fool, I don't think I've ever met anyone who exudes such arrogance as yourself. Besides, what you are saying reeks of mereological nihilism. In which case you'd simply be asserting that you don't exist. The question that would immediately follow from mereological nihilism would be "why are you talking to strangers on an online site if you don't exist?"

Lickdafoot has sex appeal because her aura is the definition of the word sensual.She is like the Nympho who sits in the garden waiting for her long lost prey.He walks into the unknown. He is hungry, tired, and weak. But he see something there in the distance, and his vision is vague. There is a female, who sits there on a rock in a state of loneliness and despair. She has hair like the fires of Armageddon, skin like snow, eyes that sparkle like the Western stars....

I AM THE CHOSEN ONE
I AM THE GRAND POOBAH OF DDO
I AM THE BOOGIE MAN
I AM THE REAL LIFE SANTA CLAUSE
I AM THE PARADOXICAL ZEBRA PRANCING THROUGH THE GRASSY PLANES YOUR COGNITIVE EXPERIENCE
I AM THE REINCARNATION OF THE DEAD DREAMS OF HUMANITY
I AM THE DISH WHO RAN AWAY WITH THE SPOON
I am your friend.

1) Atheists equivocate when they claim things come from nothing in quantum mechanics. To them, nothing doesn't mean nothing. It means a sea of transient particles, which is not nothing. Nothing means nothing, or non-being. Non-being cannot produce being.

2) Atheists equivocate when they try to claim that everything comes into existence from pre-existing materials. They equivocate when they say nothing begins to exist. The reality is that people begin to exist. When the sperm meets the egg, the sperm and the egg cease to exist and in their place is a new, unique, living human being. We begin to exist. Therefore we can see that things do begin to exist, so it is perfectly reasonable to argue that since the universe began to exist, as we do, then it had a cause of its existence, as we did.

There's a potential fallacy of composition hanging over it's head, it's a victim of Russell's Paradox, it equivocates "begin to exist" to mean both the change form/ rearrangement of something and the popping into existence of something ex nihilo. Also, the consensus in Quantum Mechanics is that the virtual particle fluctuations are spontaneous (which means acting without external stimulus). Another reason the first premise is false, is because when looking at the radioactive decay of an atom, carbon-12 technically "begins to exist" without any external stimulus. Therefore, we know that things can "begin to exist" without external causes.

Even without Quantum Mechanics the KCA doesn't have any solid foundations.

1) Atheists equivocate when they claim things come from nothing in quantum mechanics. To them, nothing doesn't mean nothing. It means a sea of transient particles, which is not nothing. Nothing means nothing, or non-being. Non-being cannot produce being.

Except that the mainstream view of Quantum Mechanics is that there is no "sea" of transient particles.

2) Atheists equivocate when they try to claim that everything comes into existence from pre-existing materials. They equivocate when they say nothing begins to exist. The reality is that people begin to exist. When the sperm meets the egg, the sperm and the egg cease to exist and in their place is a new, unique, living human being. We begin to exist. Therefore we can see that things do begin to exist, so it is perfectly reasonable to argue that since the universe began to exist, as we do, then it had a cause of its existence, as we did.

Matter never begins to exist. We only state something begins to exist in a certain form. Everything is made of matter, which is not 'created'.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

1) Atheists equivocate when they claim things come from nothing in quantum mechanics. To them, nothing doesn't mean nothing. It means a sea of transient particles, which is not nothing. Nothing means nothing, or non-being. Non-being cannot produce being.

Except that the mainstream view of Quantum Mechanics is that there is no "sea" of transient particles.

2) Atheists equivocate when they try to claim that everything comes into existence from pre-existing materials. They equivocate when they say nothing begins to exist. The reality is that people begin to exist. When the sperm meets the egg, the sperm and the egg cease to exist and in their place is a new, unique, living human being. We begin to exist. Therefore we can see that things do begin to exist, so it is perfectly reasonable to argue that since the universe began to exist, as we do, then it had a cause of its existence, as we did.

Matter never begins to exist. We only state something begins to exist in a certain form. Everything is made of matter, which is not 'created'.

Except that the mainstream view of Quantum Mechanics is that there is no "sea" of transient particles.

I always figured that was the case, I've never heard a physicist refer to the vacuum as a "sea"...

First Video: There is still clearly an equivocation because I could just ask, did X come form something that existed before time T, or did X come from nothing that existed before time T?

Since the Kalam Cosmological Argument still equivocates "begin to exist" to mean both "begin to exist from something" and "begin to exist from nothing" using the glossing over technique, then the objection still stands. It's stands no matter how firmly Craig tries to define it because it's just semantics on his behalf, and not getting to the root of the problem with the argument.

Second Video: Craig is confusing dependency and causes. A ripple in a pond depends on the pond to exist, but the pond itself isn't the direct cause of the ripple. I'm not arguing that that virtual particles are uncaused from nothing like Craig says atheists are, but the consensus is, at the Quantum level that the virtual particle fluctuations occur spontaneously (which means acting with no external stimulus). Acting without external stimulus would include an external cause.

Ah, Rational, how are you doing today?

P1 doesn't equivocate because it's not setting out to prove the universe came about creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia, or creatio ex deo. Of course you can add the extra bit "begins to exist from something" and "begins to exist from nothing" but by then you're attacking a straw man version of the argument.

There are many interpretations of QM. Not all of them are undeterministic (as WLC points out). The general consensus is irrelevant as A) It is an Ad Populum/Argument from Authority and B) Unknown cause =/= non-existent cause.

Actually, you believe that there was God, then there was the universe. Therefore, the Kalam has to be arguing for creation from nothing.

A) The fact that we believe there was nothing before the universe other then God does not imply that we believe in creatio ex nihilo (in fact, it points more towards creatio ex deo then anything). Secondly, what we believe is irrelevant to the KCA. The KCA argues that the universe has a cause. It does not, I repeat, does not, seek to prove how the universe came about. Merely that it came about via a cause.

"The general consensus is irrelevant as A) It is an Ad Populum/Argument from Authority and B) Unknown cause =/= non-existent cause."

A) So if scientific consensus is irrelevant, then I guess the consensus that The Big Bang is true doesn't mean anything according to your logic.

It's irrelevant if there is evidence to the contrary. (Deterministic interpretations of Quantum Physics=Evidence to the contrary)

b) This is an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know how it could have no cause, doesn't mean it doesn't. All evidence points to virtual particle fluctuations being spontaneous. This means, acting without external stimulus.

Not so. Like I've previously said. There are multiple interpretations of Quantum Physics. Not all of those interpretations are non-deterministic. You'd have to prove that all deterministic interpretations are false.

"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"

1) Atheists equivocate when they claim things come from nothing in quantum mechanics. To them, nothing doesn't mean nothing. It means a sea of transient particles, which is not nothing. Nothing means nothing, or non-being. Non-being cannot produce being.

2) Atheists equivocate when they try to claim that everything comes into existence from pre-existing materials. They equivocate when they say nothing begins to exist. The reality is that people begin to exist. When the sperm meets the egg, the sperm and the egg cease to exist and in their place is a new, unique, living human being. We begin to exist. Therefore we can see that things do begin to exist, so it is perfectly reasonable to argue that since the universe began to exist, as we do, then it had a cause of its existence, as we did.

There's a potential fallacy of composition hanging over it's head, it's a victim of Russell's Paradox, it equivocates "begin to exist" to mean both the change form/ rearrangement of something and the popping into existence of something ex nihilo. Also, the consensus in Quantum Mechanics is that the virtual particle fluctuations are spontaneous (which means acting without external stimulus). Another reason the first premise is false, is because when looking at the radioactive decay of an atom, carbon-12 technically "begins to exist" without any external stimulus. Therefore, we know that things can "begin to exist" without external causes.

You know that radioactive decay is the result of an imbalance in the proton to neutron ratio in the molecule, right? That's the cause of radioactive decay. This is an example of probabilistic causation. External stimulus is clearly not the cause as the cause is internal.

In regards to Quantum Mechanics, once again, the general consensus is irrelevant when there is evidence to the contrary.

Not to mention, what consensus? Among whom? How many scientists?

"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"

First Video: There is still clearly an equivocation because I could just ask, did X come form something that existed before time T, or did X come from nothing that existed before time T?

Since the Kalam Cosmological Argument still equivocates "begin to exist" to mean both "begin to exist from something" and "begin to exist from nothing" using the glossing over technique, then the objection still stands. It's stands no matter how firmly Craig tries to define it because it's just semantics on his behalf, and not getting to the root of the problem with the argument.

Second Video: Craig is confusing dependency and causes. A ripple in a pond depends on the pond to exist, but the pond itself isn't the direct cause of the ripple. I'm not arguing that that virtual particles are uncaused from nothing like Craig says atheists are, but the consensus is, at the Quantum level that the virtual particle fluctuations occur spontaneously (which means acting with no external stimulus). Acting without external stimulus would include an external cause.

Ah, Rational, how are you doing today?

P1 doesn't equivocate because it's not setting out to prove the universe came about creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia, or creatio ex deo. Of course you can add the extra bit "begins to exist from something" and "begins to exist from nothing" but by then you're attacking a straw man version of the argument.

There are many interpretations of QM. Not all of them are undeterministic (as WLC points out). The general consensus is irrelevant as A) It is an Ad Populum/Argument from Authority and B) Unknown cause =/= non-existent cause.

Actually, you believe that there was God, then there was the universe. Therefore, the Kalam has to be arguing for creation from nothing.

A) The fact that we believe there was nothing before the universe other then God does not imply that we believe in creatio ex nihilo (in fact, it points more towards creatio ex deo then anything). Secondly, what we believe is irrelevant to the KCA. The KCA argues that the universe has a cause. It does not, I repeat, does not, seek to prove how the universe came about. Merely that it came about via a cause.

"The general consensus is irrelevant as A) It is an Ad Populum/Argument from Authority and B) Unknown cause =/= non-existent cause."

A) So if scientific consensus is irrelevant, then I guess the consensus that The Big Bang is true doesn't mean anything according to your logic.

It's irrelevant if there is evidence to the contrary. (Deterministic interpretations of Quantum Physics=Evidence to the contrary)

b) This is an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know how it could have no cause, doesn't mean it doesn't. All evidence points to virtual particle fluctuations being spontaneous. This means, acting without external stimulus.

Not so. Like I've previously said. There are multiple interpretations of Quantum Physics. Not all of those interpretations are non-deterministic. You'd have to prove that all deterministic interpretations are false.

"A) The fact that we believe there was nothing before the universe other then God does not imply that we believe in creatio ex nihilo (in fact, it points more towards creatio ex deo then anything). "

So what was God composed of which allowed him to create the universe from himself? Take away the anthropomorphic delusion, and we have a scientific claim on our hands.

"Secondly, what we believe is irrelevant to the KCA. The KCA argues that the universe has a cause. It does not, I repeat, does not, seek to prove how the universe came about. Merely that it came about via a cause."

The argue fails to even do that, why does truth for the parts have to be true for the whole in this case?

"It's irrelevant if there is evidence to the contrary. (Deterministic interpretations of Quantum Physics=Evidence to the contrary)"

These interpretations are not as solid, hence why the consensus is that the fluctuations are spontaneous. There is a lot of evidence which contradicts The Big Bang theory, but The Big Bang theory is still stronger.

"Not so. Like I've previously said. There are multiple interpretations of Quantum Physics. Not all of those interpretations are non-deterministic. You'd have to prove that all deterministic interpretations are false."

There are multiple interpretations of everything, I'm talking about mainstream Quantum Mechanics.

"You know that radioactive decay is the result of an imbalance in the proton to neutron ratio in the molecule, right? That's the cause of radioactive decay. This is an example of probabilistic causation. External stimulus is clearly not the cause as the cause is internal."

Did I say there was no internal cause? I believe I only said external..

"In regards to Quantum Mechanics, once again, the general consensus is irrelevant when there is evidence to the contrary.

Not to mention, what consensus? Among whom? How many scientists?"

Look up spontaneous emission, there are clearly things that occur without external causes. The KCA can't even demonstrate any cause.

"A) The fact that we believe there was nothing before the universe other then God does not imply that we believe in creatio ex nihilo (in fact, it points more towards creatio ex deo then anything). "

So what was God composed of which allowed him to create the universe from himself? Take away the anthropomorphic delusion, and we have a scientific claim on our hands.

How is what constitutes God relevant? You seem to be making the implication that because God is not a physical being, he is incapable of creating physical beings from himself. But the problem with that is that the only way to ascertain the validity of that statement you'd have to have an omniscient understanding of the spiritual world along with how it correlates and interacts with the physical. Unfortunately, we are only capable of understanding the physical. Thus making such a claim is bare assertion.

"Secondly, what we believe is irrelevant to the KCA. The KCA argues that the universe has a cause. It does not, I repeat, does not, seek to prove how the universe came about. Merely that it came about via a cause."

The argue fails to even do that, why does truth for the parts have to be true for the whole in this case?

The universe isn't being treated as a whole, but a part. The fallacy of composition doesn't apply. Besides, an infinite universe defies A) the problem of infinite regress ( which you failed entirely to refute in our debate) and B) The Big Bang theory.

"It's irrelevant if there is evidence to the contrary. (Deterministic interpretations of Quantum Physics=Evidence to the contrary)"

These interpretations are not as solid, hence why the consensus is that the fluctuations are spontaneous. There is a lot of evidence which contradicts The Big Bang theory, but The Big Bang theory is still stronger.

In what way are they not as solid?

"Not so. Like I've previously said. There are multiple interpretations of Quantum Physics. Not all of those interpretations are non-deterministic. You'd have to prove that all deterministic interpretations are false."

There are multiple interpretations of everything, I'm talking about mainstream Quantum Mechanics.

And?

"You know that radioactive decay is the result of an imbalance in the proton to neutron ratio in the molecule, right? That's the cause of radioactive decay. This is an example of probabilistic causation. External stimulus is clearly not the cause as the cause is internal."

Did I say there was no internal cause? I believe I only said external..

That's the point. You seem to be implying that internal causes are somehow not causes at all.

"In regards to Quantum Mechanics, once again, the general consensus is irrelevant when there is evidence to the contrary.

Not to mention, what consensus? Among whom? How many scientists?"

Look up spontaneous emission, there are clearly things that occur without external causes. The KCA can't even demonstrate any cause.

External causes? I agree with that. Not all causes are external. Some are internal. Like in the case of radioactive decay. Your point?

"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"

1) Atheists equivocate when they claim things come from nothing in quantum mechanics. To them, nothing doesn't mean nothing. It means a sea of transient particles, which is not nothing. Nothing means nothing, or non-being. Non-being cannot produce being.

Except that the mainstream view of Quantum Mechanics is that there is no "sea" of transient particles.

2) Atheists equivocate when they try to claim that everything comes into existence from pre-existing materials. They equivocate when they say nothing begins to exist. The reality is that people begin to exist. When the sperm meets the egg, the sperm and the egg cease to exist and in their place is a new, unique, living human being. We begin to exist. Therefore we can see that things do begin to exist, so it is perfectly reasonable to argue that since the universe began to exist, as we do, then it had a cause of its existence, as we did.

Matter never begins to exist. We only state something begins to exist in a certain form. Everything is made of matter, which is not 'created'.

Except that the mainstream view of Quantum Mechanics is that there is no "sea" of transient particles.

I always figured that was the case, I've never heard a physicist refer to the vacuum as a "sea"...

"sea" is merely a word to describe the fact that vaccums are not true "voids". But in fact have their own quantum inflations and vacuum energy which is why we see particles pop up after only a short amount of time.

"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"

1) Atheists equivocate when they claim things come from nothing in quantum mechanics. To them, nothing doesn't mean nothing. It means a sea of transient particles, which is not nothing. Nothing means nothing, or non-being. Non-being cannot produce being.

2) Atheists equivocate when they try to claim that everything comes into existence from pre-existing materials. They equivocate when they say nothing begins to exist. The reality is that people begin to exist. When the sperm meets the egg, the sperm and the egg cease to exist and in their place is a new, unique, living human being. We begin to exist. Therefore we can see that things do begin to exist, so it is perfectly reasonable to argue that since the universe began to exist, as we do, then it had a cause of its existence, as we did.

There's a potential fallacy of composition hanging over it's head, it's a victim of Russell's Paradox, it equivocates "begin to exist" to mean both the change form/ rearrangement of something and the popping into existence of something ex nihilo. Also, the consensus in Quantum Mechanics is that the virtual particle fluctuations are spontaneous (which means acting without external stimulus). Another reason the first premise is false, is because when looking at the radioactive decay of an atom, carbon-12 technically "begins to exist" without any external stimulus. Therefore, we know that things can "begin to exist" without external causes.

You know that radioactive decay is the result of an imbalance in the proton to neutron ratio in the molecule, right? That's the cause of radioactive decay. This is an example of probabilistic causation. External stimulus is clearly not the cause as the cause is internal.

In regards to Quantum Mechanics, once again, the general consensus is irrelevant when there is evidence to the contrary.

Not to mention, what consensus? Among whom? How many scientists?

"But the problem with that is that the only way to ascertain the validity of that statement you'd have to have an omniscient understanding of the spiritual world along with how it correlates and interacts with the physical. Unfortunately, we are only capable of understanding the physical. Thus making such a claim is bare assertion."

Claiming a spirit world exists and can even interact with the physical world is a bare assertion. If you can't even explain how this is supposed to work, then why should anyone believe you?

"The universe isn't being treated as a whole, but a part. The fallacy of composition doesn't apply. Besides, an infinite universe defies A) the problem of infinite regress ( which you failed entirely to refute in our debate) and B) The Big Bang theory."

You have not shown why the fallacy of composition doesn't apply. You are assuming that because parts of the universe have causes, that the universe as a whole must too. If you want to make the claim that the universe is part of something else that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the universe is a whole itself which contains parts. You are simply trying to shift the goal posts without actually answering anything.

As far as the infinite regress goes, that would apply to God's actions as well. How could one cause anything without time? A cause must precede it's effect, precede means come before in time but if there is no time, where are you getting this external cause from?

Also, The Big Bang theory says the universe as we know it came from the singularity. There is nothing in the theory that supports ex nihilo.

"That's the point. You seem to be implying that internal causes are somehow not causes at all."

You seem to be misinterpreting what I'm implying.

"External causes? I agree with that. Not all causes are external. Some are internal. Like in the case of radioactive decay. Your point?"

An internal cause of the universe as we know it would be considered a natural cause, therefore putting God even more out of a job than he already is. Since we know Dark Energy is pushing the galaxies apart from within, then the cause of the expansion from the singularity (if one is required for the sake of argument) would most likely be internal.

""sea" is merely a word to describe the fact that vaccums are not true "voids". But in fact have their own quantum inflations and vacuum energy which is why we see particles pop up after only a short amount of time."

I'm not claiming something can come from absolutely nothing, so whether a vacuum is a complete void or not does not appeal to my argument. Also, theists forget to realize that when it comes to cause and effect, the effect is dependent on the cause but not everything the effect is dependent on is a cause itself.

The things theists try to conjure up as causes for the fluctuations are not actual causes, but just things the fluctuations are dependent on. For example, a ripple is dependent on the pond existing, but the pond itself isn't the cause of the ripple.

There are still no good reasons to assume virtual particle fluctuations are effected by external stimulas, and seem spontaneous.